Bail Bonds In Seminole – “Full High Court Hears State Defend Anti-Boycott Law”

Source   – J Post
By            – YONAH JEREMY BOB
Category – Bail Bonds In Seminole, Bail Bonds Services Sanford

Bail Bonds In Seminole

A rare maximum nine justice panel of the High Court of Justice on Sunday heard arguments over the constitutionality of the Anti-Boycott Law, which it froze in December 2012. Fighting an uphill battle after the court previously seemed to preliminarily accept the claims of a range of left-wing NGOs that the law was unconstitutional, the state tried to argue for maintaining the law on the narrow grounds that it is premature to cancel a law which has not been used. One right-wing NGO argued that the law merely combated boycotts which are themselves inherently anti-free speech. The High Court froze the law in December 2012 only days after a first hearing against it, but then gave numerous extensions to the sides for addressing the legal issues in dispute. It also broadened the panel to a maximum of nine justices presided over by Supreme Court President Asher D. Grunis.against “1948 Israel.”

In other words, the court would not let the state penalize those boycotting “the occupation” of lands which Israel gained control of 1967 would.Bu at the same time, the court would let the state penalize those boycotting the entire country, including parts of Israel on the pre-1967 “Israeli side” of the green-line. The Anti-Boycott Law was passed in July 2011 and imposes sanctions on any individual or entity that calls for an economic boycott of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank or of Israel itself. The law was passed after the decision of several prominent Israeli artists not to appear or perform in settlements in the West Bank in what they characterized as a protest “against the Occupation.” The Anti-Boycott Law allows entities to win compensation in civil courts from individuals or organizations who have called for a boycott, with controversial provisions regarding the level of proof needed for actual damages. The petitioners, including Gush Shalom, Adalah – the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and many others, claimed that the law essentially does not require proving actual damages have occurred at all. The law also empowers the Minister of Finance to impose financial penalties, including the removal of tax exemptions, on NGOs that call for a boycott. Gabi Lasky, one of petitioner Gush Shalom’s attorneys, said that the law was “a classic example of the tyranny of the majority” imposing its will and that she hoped the court would declare “unambiguously that even a majority in the Knesset is obligated to preserve the principle of fairness” that underlies democracy.

Responding in 2012 to the court’s freezing of the law, Adalah attorney Susan Zohar said she was pleased that the court had “recognized the many constitutional problems with the law which seriously harms the freedom of speech and to protest.” The state’s main defense in 2012, which appeared to have been insufficient, was that the law had not yet been used and that the court should not intervene until there was a concrete case. Bu Zohar also said that the law had already caused harm with a “chilling” effect on free speech from persons and organizations afraid to take any action which might even lead to a lawsuit. Zohar added that the law was “born in sin and in contradiction with the positions of the legal advisors” of the state who opposed the law publicly. At the time the law was passed, Knesset legal adviser Eyal Yinon warned the Knesset plenum that the legislation was “borderline illegal” since it could violate freedom of political expression. Even Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein reportedly called it “borderline” defensible and admitted in defending the law that it had serious problems. Weinstein’s main argument for not striking it down yet was that the law has never been used once, as opposed to making any positive legal arguments in its favor. At the 2012 hearing on the law, Yinon partially reversed himself, formally defending the law on behalf of the Knesset. Yet, his defense was at most lukewarm. The court questioned him sharply how he could defend the law when he himself had “almost killed” the law. Yinon responded that he still disagreed with the law and thought it should have been drafted differently, but that ultimately he had to defer to the Knesset, which was not bound even by his opinion as legal adviser. According to Yinon, once the Knesset had voted, his job was to represent the Knesset. He even noted that they had considered not appearing at the hearing and asking the Knesset to hire outside counsel, but eventually decided not to do that in this case. The law had also provoked significant international criticism, including from traditional Israeli allies. If the court strikes down the law, it would not be endorsing boycotts as much as it would be saying that penalizing boycotters is a violation of Israel’s basic laws.

Source : jpost.com/National-News/Full-High-Court-hears-state-defend-Anti-Boycott-Law-341542

Bail Bonds Work In Sanford – “The Evolution of Law Practice Management”

Source : Best Legal Practices
By :  Rita Chaires
Category : Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

Evolution of Law Practice Management

Anticipation was high for the International Legal Technology Association conference this August. Over the course of five days, the conference hosted more than 200 individual panels on everything from wireless networks to social media profiles to law practice management.

Law Practice Management: The Internal Office Structure
In the latter category, one panel tackled the evolution of law practice management, and not in terms of computer software or upgraded mobile devices to keep law practitioners in constant contact with their clients, but in terms of the internal office structure. The days of the cut-and-dry intranet available to legal professionals are not far behind us. Some of the earliest examples of law firm intranet landing pages provided little besides a great wall of information and no way to navigate it when updates occurred. These days, employee benefits, client billing and human resources information all share the space, but they’ve been allotted their own pages and have become easily navigable with the tap of a mouse, compartmentalized and broken down into clear categories. How? The dashboard model.

The Dashboard Model
Many sizeable law offices have turned to the dashboard model, revamping their website to make it more efficient for partners and other employees company-wide. The larger the firm, the more frequent (and possibly repetitive) the questions; the dashboard model allows for no-nonsense search functions and organized information to be looked up by attorneys on their own.

As a means of law practice management, updating your firm’s intranet may not seem of the highest priority. But testimonies from law offices who’ve made the switch to dashboard-style intranet indicate significant improvement, making it worth the consideration if your law firm hasn’t already followed suit. Visit the latest online issue of Law Practice Magazine for information on why popular firms prefer the dashboard model for company websites and whether their needs align with yours.

Source : bestlegalpractices.com/dashboard-intranet-evolution-law-practice-management/

Bail Bonds Services Sanford – “Must-Have Apps For Every Lawyer’s New iPad”

Source     : My Case
By             :  Nicole Black
Category : Bail Bonds In Seminole, Bail Bonds Services Sanford

Must-Have Apps For Every Lawyer’s New iPad

You received exactly what you’d asked for this holiday season and now you’re holding a shiny new iPad (or iPhone) in your hands. Now what? How do you figure out which apps to download to help to make you a more effective, efficient lawyer? Well, you’re in luck! Get started by downloading a few of the apps suggested below:

1) PDF annotation and storage apps. Goodreader ($4.99), PDF Expert ($9.99), iAnnotate ($9.99) and ReaddleDocs (free) are all good choices, although PDF Expert is my personal favorite. Another new entrant into this category worth considering is EasyAnnotate ($2.99), which permits side-by-side comparison and annotation of PDF documents.

2) Document creation. Consider Apple’s iPages app ($9.99), Office² HD for Word docs ($7.99) or Office 365 for iPhone (free).

3) Note taking apps. Some of the most popular apps include Evernote (free), Notability ($2.99) and Springpad (free).

4) Scanner apps. You have a number of options, including Scanner Pro ($2.99), GeniusScan (free) or TurboScan ($1.99).

5) Litigation apps. There are an increasing number of litigation apps being released, but here are a few to get you started: TrialPad ($89.99), ExhibitA ($14.99), ExhibitView ($49.99), TrialDirector (free), JuryStar ($39.99), iJury ($14.99), iJuror ($19.99), Jury Tracker ($4.99) and JuryDuty ($39.99).

6) Pre-trial apps. While there are many pre-trial iPad apps available, here are a few to consider: TranscriptPad ($89.99), DocketLaw (free), Mobile Transcript (free), and The Deponent App ($9.99).

7) Law practice management apps. Most reputable web-based law practice management companies offer iPad (and iPhone) apps which provide lawyers with access to their firm’s documents, client files, contact information and more. And, MyCase’s app, in addition to providing full access to all of this information, also offers a client-facing app which allows clients to securely communicate with their lawyers and access all of their case-related information as well. So there you have it–a great list of apps to get you started. Download a few of them and see how much your new iDevice helps you to streamline your law practice and improve your productivity in 2014!

Source : mycase.com/blog/2013/12/must-apps-every-lawyers-new-ipad/

Assault Bail Bonds Sanford – Illinois Unions Sue To Block State Pension Funding Shift

Source      – bloomberg.com/
By            – Andrew Harris and Tim Jones
Category – Assault Bail Bonds Sanford

Assault Bail Bonds Sanford

Illinois’ plan for fixing its $100 billion public pension shortfall is unconstitutional, a union coalition said, suing to restore benefits lawmakers cut to narrow the nation’s worst state retirement-plan deficit.

The unions described as “theft” legislation that Governor Pat Quinn, a Democrat, signed last month to strengthen state pension plans and ultimately save $145 billion with smaller cost of living adjustments and later retirements, according to a statement announcing the suit. The complaint was filed yesterday in state court in Springfield, the Illinois capital.

“Teachers, nurses, emergency responders, and other workers and retirees will not stand by while politicians try to take away their life savings illegally,” state AFL-CIO President Michael Carrigan said in the statement.

Illinois has the worst-funded pension system in the nation and led U.S. states in losing ground every year from 2007 to 2012 in socking away enough assets to pay retired workers. It was the most-populous of five states, including Kentucky, North Dakota, Oregon and Vermont, where pension-funding ratios fell at least 21 percentage points during those years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Quinn is scheduled to give his state-of-the-state address tomorrow.

The reductions in benefits are barred by the state’s constitution, the unions claim in the suit. Under a provision added in 1970, membership in a state or local government pension plan is an unbreakable contract. The benefits it provides can’t be reduced, according to the complaint.

Retirement Age

The plan was passed by the Legislature on Dec. 4 and is scheduled to take effect June 1.

The changes raise the retirement age by as much as five years for workers who are now 45 years old or younger. Automatic and annually compounded 3 percent cost-of-living increases for retirees would be replaced by smaller yearly adjustments, generating most of the projected $145 billion in savings. The measure would also give some employees the option of moving into a 401(k)-type defined-contribution retirement plan.

Calling their coalition We Are One Illinois, unions including the AFL-CIO, the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees filed the complaint on behalf of 25 active and retired workers. The suit follows three similar challenges brought by smaller groups.

The workers are asking the court to rule the measure is unconstitutional and prevent the changes from taking effect.

Elected Judge

The case was assigned to Sangamon County Circuit Judge Peter C. Cavanagh, according to the court’s electronic docket. Running unopposed as a Republican, Cavanagh was elected to a six-year term in 2010, according to Sangamon County voting records.

Also named as defendants are state Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka and Treasurer Dan Rutherford, both Republicans. Rutherford is seeking his party’s nomination for governor in this year’s general election.

“These lawsuits come as no surprise,” Brooke Anderson, a spokeswoman for Quinn, said in an e-mailed statement. “We believe it’s constitutional and we’ll defend the interests of taxpayers.”

Natalie Bauer, a spokeswoman for Democratic state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, said the office was reviewing the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class made up of anyone who first contributed to the state Teachers Retirement System of Illinois, the State Employees’ Retirement System or the State Universities Retirement of Illinois before Jan. 1, 2011.

 

Source – bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-28/illinois-unions-sue-to-block-state-pension-funding-shift.html

Skilled Bail Bonds – “Court: Serial Liar Glass Can’t Be A Lawyer”

Source   : Edition CNN
By       : Ann O’Neill
Category : Skilled Bail Bonds

Bail Bonds Services Sanford

Trust me, the scandal-scarred former boy wonder said. No way, responded California’s highest court. The state Supreme Court rejected former journalist Stephen Glass‘ request for admission to the bar on Monday, finding that he had not truly reformed in the 15 years since he made up facts in more than 40 magazine articles — and then lied some more to cover up his misdeeds in one of the journalism world’s most infamous scandals. The court found that Glass, who works as a paralegal at a Beverly Hills law firm, lacks “the good moral character” to be a lawyer. It simply doesn’t buy the disgraced serial liar’s arguments that he has changed. In a scathing 33-page opinion supporting its decision to deny Glass admission to the California State Bar, the court concluded that he failed to show genuine remorse and never fully came clean on all his fabrications and that his “lack of integrity and forthrightness” continued even during his hearings before the court. Lawyers and journalists aren’t highly regarded, although they usually rank a notch above lobbyists, members of Congress and used-car salespeople in Gallup’s annual Honesty and Ethics survey. Lawyer jokes to the contrary, the court insisted, “A lawyer’s good moral character is essential for the protection of clients and for the proper functioning of the judicial system itself.” Glass, who has declined to discuss the case publicly, could not be reached for comment. His lawyer, Arthur Margolis, said he was disappointed by the court’s decision. He said there would be no futher comment.

Stephen Glass wants to be a lawyer

Glass, now 41, was a rising star at The New Republic when he was exposed as a serial fabulist in 1998. His editors investigated and learned that he had fabricated quotes and sources — sometimes entire events — in dozens of articles he wrote over three years for the magazine and other publications. The events of his rise and downfall became the basis of a movie, “Shattered Glass.” Even while he was writing magazine pieces, Glass attended night classes at Georgetown’s law school. He graduated in 2000 and passed the bar exams in New York and California.Richard Bradley, former editor of George magazine, said in 2011 that at least three pieces Glass wrote for the magazine contained fabrications. He added that Glass was good at “figuring out people’s blind spots.” Bradley said he forgave Glass long ago but added, “Being a lawyer is a privilege, not a right. He can be a fully contributing, valuable member of society without being a lawyer.” Glass withdrew his application to the New York State Bar in 2003 when it became obvious he would be turned down. He applied to the California Bar in 2005 after he moved to Los Angeles. A bar review committee declined to find him morally fit to be a lawyer; Glass appealed, and the California Supreme Court added “In Re Glass on Admission” to its docket for 2012.

The State Bar Court argued that the past was not the issue: it’s Glass’ moral character today. The bar examiners — the lawyers who vet other lawyers — argued that Glass’ lies were so “staggering” he hadn’t done enough to demonstrate he had reformed. “Going to law school and living a normal life isn’t enough,” Rachel Grunberg, a lawyer for the bar court, said in 2011. The Supreme Court was not impressed with Glass’ arguments that he was sorry for what he had done and that he had changed. Nor was it impressed that he had won over a long list of accomplished people. “Our review of the record indicates hypocrisy and evasiveness in Glass’ testimony at the California State Bar hearing,” the court’s opinion stated. “We find it particularly disturbing that at the hearing Glass persisted in claiming that he had made a good faith effort to work with the magazines that published his works. He went through many verbal twists and turns at the hearing to avoid acknowledging the obvious fact that in his New York bar application he exaggerated his level of assistance to the magazines that published his fabrications.” Writing a book and appearing on the TV newsmagazine “60 Minutes” cannot be considered indicators of genuine remorse, the court observed. The court also noted that since Glass’ journalism career crashed and burned, he seemed less motivated to help others and more inclined to “advance his own career and financial and emotional well-being.” Even his volunteer legal work was not particularly charitable, since all lawyers are expected to perform pro bono work, the court noted.

SOurce : edition.cnn.com/2014/01/27/justice/stephen-glass-court-ruling/

Bail Bonds Sanford – BMW Adds New Engines And xDrive Variants For 2014

Source      – nitrobahn.com/
By             – priyankanair8
Category – Bail Bonds Sanford

Bail Bonds Sanford

BMW has announced a series of updates to a variety of models. The innovative options will be introduced to enhance both safety and comfort. From the spring of 2014, all BMW models except for the BMW X6 will feature as standard a tyre pressure indicator which monitors the pressure in each individual tyre. An M sports exhaust system will be a standard feature on the BMW 650i Coupe, the BMW 650i Convertible and the BMW 650i Gran Coupe.

The 2-Series Coupe will be offered with two new diesel engines. The 218d Coupe is powered by a 2.0-L four-cylinder diesel that produces 143 hp (105 kW) and 320 Nm (236 lb-ft) of torque, while the 225d Coupe has a higher output of 218 hp (160 kW) and 450 Nm (332 lb-ft) of torque. The 3-Series Gran Turismo also gains a new 3.0-L straight-six diesel engine that generates 258 hp (190 kW) and 560 Nm (413 lb-ft) of torque. It enables the hatchback to sprint from 0-100 km/h in just 5.4 seconds when equipped with an optional all-wheel drive system.

A new 425d Coupe with a four-cylinder diesel engine that produces 218 hp (160 kW) will also be available. The coupe also gains a new 430d xDrive variant, while the convertible will be offered as a 428i xDrive for the first time. BMW has announced that the model will be offered with a range of individual accessories including unique paint and special alloy wheels. Also the Driving Assistant will be incorporated in the new BMW X5. Driving Assistant comprises camera-based Lane Departure Warning and Collision Warning (including pedestrian warning) with brake application function. Lane Departure Warning makes the steering wheel vibrate in order to warn the driver when he or she veers out of lane unintentionally. Collision Warning detects vehicles driving ahead and pedestrians.

Source – nitrobahn.com/news/bmw-adds-new-engines-and-xdrive-variants-for-2014/

Bail Bonds Work In Sanford – Missouri Obstructing Health Law, Judge Rules

Source      – nytimes.com/
By             – ROBERT PEAR
Category – Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

Bail Bonds Work In Sanford

A federal district judge declared Thursday that the State of Missouri was illegally obstructing the activities of insurance counselors appointed by the federal government to inform consumers of their options under the Affordable Care Act.

The judge, Ortrie D. Smith of Kansas City, issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits Missouri officials from enforcing a state law, adopted last year by legislators who said they wanted to protect consumers shopping for health coverage.

“The state law obstructs the federal purpose” by imposing onerous restrictions and requirements on people who help consumers, including groups designated as “navigators” under federal law, the judge said.

Judge Smith’s ruling applies just to Missouri, but lawyers said it had implications for more than a dozen other states that had adopted similar laws or regulations, including Florida, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin. The laws typically require licensing of counselors and navigators and limit what they can do.

Sidney D. Watson, a law professor at St. Louis University who supports the federal health law, said: “This is a very important decision. It means that certified application counselors and navigators can focus on helping consumers rather than jumping through bureaucratic hoops. They can do the important work that needs to be done to help people sign up for health insurance.”

The state laws have been promoted by Republican state legislators and by some insurance agents who say the counselors do not have the training and education needed to steer consumers through the complexities of health insurance.

Plaintiffs in the case included St. Louis Effort for AIDS, a patient education and advocacy group, and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri.

Missouri stands out among states that have put up significant obstacles to President Obama’s health law. It declined to create an insurance exchange, leaving the job to the federal government. And it has forbidden state and local officials to cooperate with the federal exchange.

Judge Smith said that the plaintiffs had already complied with federal rules for insurance counselors, but that the state had imposed a number of additional licensing requirements.

“It seems obvious these additional requirements obstruct the federal government’s operation of the federally facilitated exchange,” Judge Smith said. For that reason, he said, the state law is pre-empted by the Affordable Care Act, which has supremacy under the federal Constitution.

The Missouri law, he said, prevents counselors from doing some of the very things they are supposed to do under the federal law, like providing consumers with information about the strengths and weakness of different health plans, including those sold in the private insurance market outside the exchange.

Chris Cline, a spokesman for the Missouri insurance commissioner, John M. Huff, said the department was reviewing the ruling.

Source – nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/politics/missouri-obstructing-health-law-judge-rules.html?_r=0

Bail Bonds Services Sanford – AMD Launches New 12-Core And 16-Core Server Processors

Source     – techradar.com/
By            – Dean Wilson 
Category – Bail Bonds Services Sanford

Bail Bonds Services Sanford

AMD has released new additions to its Opteron 6300 Series of server processors, which offer 12 or 14 cores and optimised performance for the AMD Open 3.0 Open Compute Platform.

The new processors, codenamed Warsaw, are designed for enterprise use, employing AMD’s Piledriver core, enhanced power efficiency, and improved cost effectiveness. They are also fully compatible with existing Opteron 6300 Series processors.

The first new model is the Opteron 6370P, which comes with 16 cores capable of between 2.0GHz and 2.5GHz speeds.

The second addition is the Opteron 6338P, a 12-core model capable of between 2.3GHz and 2.8GHz speeds. Both versions have a TDP of 99W and quad channel U/RDDR3, ULV and LRDIMM memory support.

Ideal for virtualisation

“With the continued move to virtualized environments for more efficient server utilization, more and more workloads are limited by memory capacity and I/O bandwidth,” said Suresh Gopalakrishnan, corporate VP and GM of the Server Business Unit at AMD.

“The Opteron 6338P and 6370P processors are server CPUs optimized to deliver improved performance per-watt for virtualized private cloud deployments with less power and at lower cost points.”

AMD said the new processors are ideal for data analysis, xSQL and traditional databases.

They are available immediately through Penguin and Avnet system integrators. Starting prices are $377 (£227, AU$429) for the 12-core model and $598 (£360, AU$680) for the 16-core version.

 

Source – techradar.com/news/computing-components/amd-launches-new-12-core-and-16-core-server-processors-1218028

 

 

 

 

Bail Bonds In Sanford – English Internet Hits “Highest Speed Ever”

Source     – itwire.com/
By            – David Swan
Category – Bail Bonds In Sanford

Bail Bonds In Sanford

Their fast bowlers might be rubbish but an internet connection in England has hit the “fastest speed ever”, reaching scorching speeds of 1.4 terabits a second.

That’s fast enough to download 44 uncompressed HD films per second according to the Wall Street Journal, who said the trial used a new ‘flexible grid’ infrastructure (Flexgrid) to vary the gaps between transmission channels, usually set at 50 Gigahertz (GHz).

“By increasing the density of channels on the fiber, this approach achieved up to 42.5 percent greater data transmission efficiency compared to today’s standard networks,” the Journal reported.

The trial was conducted by BT and Alcatel-Lucent, and utilized an existing 410km fibre link between the BT Tower in London and BT’s Adastral Park research campus in Suffolk.

While lab trials, like those conducted in Melbourne’s Institute for a Broadband Enabled Society, have produced faster internet speeds this latest trial is the first time such a fast connection has been achieved using “real world” conditions.

Neil J. McRae, Chief Network Architect at BT said: “Investing for the future is core to BT’s strategy and this outstanding achievement demonstrates that BT can easily introduce new features and technologies across our core network maximizing the efficiency of our existing infrastructure. Working with Alcatel-Lucent on this trial has been highly productive in demonstrating the viability of an alien wavelength approach”

Meanwhile Tim Whitley, BT’s MD of Research and Innovation said: “BT has a long history of leading innovation in telecommunications, from the earliest days of the electric telegraph to today’s global fiber networks. These trials continue that tradition, as we work with Alcatel-Lucent to push the boundaries of fiber technology, allowing us to support the ever increasing bandwidth required by our customers, and deliver new and exciting services which rely on fast, data-hungry applications.”

Optical marketing leader at Alcatel-Lucent Kevin Drury told BBC News that the new development was akin to reducing the spaces between lanes on a busy highway, enabling more lanes of traffic to share the same space.

He said data-heavy transfers such as streaming video would travel in wide lanes, while narrow lanes would be assigned low-data transfers such as standard web pages.

 

Source – itwire.com/it-industry-news/development/62904-english-internet-hits-highest-speed-ever

 

Sanford Bail Bondsman – High Court Considers Legality Of ‘Fair Share’ Union Fees

Source      – npr.org/
By            – Nina Totenberg
Category – Sanford Bail Bondsman

Sanford Bail Bondsman

The rest of Washington may have shut down for the snow, but not the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, the justices heard arguments Tuesday in a case that could decimate public employee unions. At issue: whether nonunion members can be required to pay fees to help cover the cost of negotiating a contract from which they benefit.

In Illinois 10 years ago, 28,000 home health workers who care for adults with disabilities approved a union. Since then, hourly wages have nearly doubled, the workers now receive regular training, and they have health insurance. The state says as a result, the workforce has been stabilized and professionalized, and the government has saved money by keeping adults with disabilities in their homes.

Some workers, however, object to paying what is known as “fair share” fees. That is, even though they haven’t joined the union, they are required to pay their fair share of the costs of negotiating and administering a union contract they benefit from. The Supreme Court has long allowed such fees to prevent nonmembers from free-riding on union members’ dues. But in recent years, some of the court’s conservatives have suggested they may be prepared to reverse this long-established principle. And Tuesday’s case presents that opportunity.

On the steps of the court, Susan Watts, whose 27-year-old daughter cannot walk or talk, explained why she objects to paying fair-share fees. She joined the program, benefiting from the wage increases, after the workers were already unionized.

“I really didn’t have a vote … or a voice,” she said. “It’s mandated for us to pay this fair share, and the money is being taken from my daughter.”

Watts believes that if there were no union contract, she might have more money for her daughter’s medical care.

But that is not how the state, most of the workers, or most of the clients see it. The state says it actually has saved $632 million by creating a stable workforce to care for adults with disabilities in their homes instead of nursing homes.

And the workers and their patients say the union has transformed a program that previously had been hobbled by rapid turnover.

“I have a son that has cerebral palsy,” said Flora Johnson, a home care worker who serves on the union’s executive committee. “They tried to get me to institutionalize him years ago. But by the union coming in, he got a chance to stay home with his family.”

Many of the workers’ patients, or customers as they are known, were also on hand Tuesday; among them, Rahnee Patrick, who sat calmly in a wheelchair as the snow pelted her hat and coat.

“I had a personal assistant come to me at 5 o’clock in the morning in my house,” Patrick told the crowd gathered on the snowy steps of the Supreme Court. “She rode an hour in the snow, from the North Side of Chicago. Why was she so dedicated? Not because I’m lovely, but because she gets a really good wage, and the wage came from the unions being able to collectively bargain. I can actually go to work, and it’s because of her being able to pay her own bills that I’m able to pay my bills.”

Inside the Supreme Court chamber, the debate was equally passionate.

Lawyer William Messenger, of the Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, contended that requiring Susan Watts and others to pay fair-share fees violated their First Amendment rights.

“Are you saying that bargaining over wages and benefits in the public sector converts the process into something more?” asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Yes,” Messenger responded.

Under that reasoning, everything is “always a matter of public concern,” said Justice Antonin Scalia. “Suppose you have a policeman who is dissatisfied with his wages. So he makes an appointment with the commissioner. … He does this, you know, 10 or 11 times. And the commissioner finally is fed up and tells his secretary, ‘I don’t want to see this man again.’ Has he violated the Constitution?”

“No,” Messenger answered, but, “Once you have the collective, it would start to become a matter of public concern.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked if the state could, instead of forcing fair-share fees, pay more to union members. Messenger said yes.

Scalia noted that some private employers think it’s in their interests to deal with a single union and require all the people that they hire to at least pay fair-share fees. “Why can’t the government have the same interest?”

Sotomayor followed up, suggesting that if any of these people disagree with the union position, they can speak out.

“Are you taking the position that there cannot be an exclusive bargaining agent if there are any dissenters who don’t want to be represented by a union?” Ginsburg asked.

Messenger demurred, saying that issue is not presented in this case.

Justice Elena Kagan interrupted, calling Messenger’s argument “radical” and saying it would “radically restructure” the way workplaces across this country are run. Kagan noted that for the past 65 years, every state in the nation has debated whether to be a right-to-work state, with no mandatory fair-share fees, or a state that requires such fees. “Your argument,” she told Messenger, is that the debate should never have taken place because, “in fact, a right-to-work law is constitutionally compelled.”

Justice Stephen Breyer chimed in: You’re asking the courts of the United States to fashion a “new special labor law for government employees” using “the First Amendment as a weapon.”

If Messenger’s attempt to reverse more than a half-century of labor law met resistance in some quarters, when the other side rose to make its arguments, some of the court’s conservatives made equally clear their antipathy for labor unions.

“What I don’t understand,” said Justice Samuel Alito, “is why the union’s participation in this is essential. … Why do they need to have the union intervene here?” All of the benefits negotiated by the union could have been granted unilaterally by the state.

Alito suggested that former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, now in prison on corruption charges, recognized the union in exchange for a large campaign contribution. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli replied that in fact the union recognition program was enacted by large bipartisan majorities in the state Legislature

“In an era when government is getting bigger and bigger,” said Justice Anthony Kennedy, “suppose the young person thinks that the state is squandering his heritage on unnecessary or excessive payments or benefits.” Can the union “take money” from an employee who disagrees with the union on such “a fundamental question”?

Lawyer Paul Smith, representing the union and the state, replied that the consequences of doing away with the fair-share fee might well be that nonunion members would be paid less or would have to join the union in all respects, including paying for the union’s overtly political and campaign speech.

The key point, said Verrilli, representing the federal government, is to look at the court’s consistent precedents. Under those rulings, he said, when the government is acting as an employer, its “interest in the effective and efficient carrying out of its own operations is entitled to very substantial weight” — more weight than it is entitled to when it is regulating the citizenry in general.

Chief Justice John Roberts reiterated a question he had asked repeatedly: Does Medicaid control the rates paid to workers?

No, replied Verrilli. The federal government provides funds. The state provides funds, and under this program the state is given considerable latitude to set wages, as long as it is saving money when compared with institutionalized care.

A decision in the case is expected by summer.

 

Source – npr.org/2014/01/21/264575979/high-court-considers-legality-of-fair-share-union-fees